Last May 28, the late Senator Lorenzo Tañada was honored by family, friends and admirers on his death anniversary. He was the longest-serving senator of the Republic. He was also the principal sponsor of Republic Act 4200, or the Anti-Wiretapping law which was signed into law on June 19, 1965.
In essence, “the law prohibits the tapping of any wire or cable or using other devices to record, intercept or secretly overhear any private communication or spoken words when it is unauthorized by all parties in the conversation except when it is done pursuant to a court order and complies with all conditions approved by law.” Because of this law, all intercepted communications not authorized by the courts are inadmissible as evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative and legislative hearings or investigations.
According to Senator Tañada, one of his reasons of filing the bill was to stop the practice of government officials of spying on one another—“a most obnoxious instrument of oppression or arbitrary power.” It is a very short law consisting of one page but in its 53 years of existence, it has stood the test of time.
Previous attempts to amend the law have failed. The last attempt was in 2016 when Senator Panfilo Lacson filed Senate bill 1210; he wanted courts to be given more leeway to decide which additional serious crimes can be intercepted by police during criminal investigations. He failed, even if what he was proposing made a lot of sense.
One of the reasons Senator Lacson proposed an amendment was the onslaught of new technologies in the communication field. Being a former police officer, he understands that new crimes will be getting the better of the ability of the police to stay abreast with newer and more sophisticated crimes. There is a need to update the 53-year-old law to make it relevant to the times. He believes—as I do—that R.A. 4200 is a relic of the Jurassic age. The dictaphone, which is mentioned in the law, can now only be found in museums.
Yet, the law has remained unchanged all these years. The question is why lawmakers have refused to make changes in it. Is it only because of the lobby of those who will fight to the death to protect their privacy? Or could there be more sinister reasons why there is no movement to amend the law even if there are legitimate questions in legal circles about what is and what is not covered by the law? Could it be that one reason is the possible involvement of public officials in high crimes and therefore want to keep the law intact for their protection? This scenario is entirely possible but let us hope not.
The operative term in the law is “private conversation. It is protected at all costs. The law does not make any distinction between innocent private conversation and simple private conversation. How about two public officials discussing to commit treason, plunder or electoral fraud? Is this considered private conversation? If it is, the bigger question to ask is why these people should receive the protection of the law when their intention is to commit high crimes.
In 1965, there was no such thing as transnational crime. Now, it is the name of the ball game in law enforcement. As the name suggests, transnational crimes are crimes committed across borders. These are crimes that can be planned in one country, committed in another and the proceeds brought to another country.
Illegal drugs were also a non-existent problem in 1965 in the scale that we know it today. We know now that methamphetamine or shabu is manufactured in other countries and smuggled into this country by floating them in containers only to be retrieved by local drug lords out in the sea. Foreigners who operate illegal laboratories here easily escape arrest by hopping on a plane to get out of the country’s jurisdiction. Today, there are communication equipment that one can buy in shops that can intercept communications.
What if someone intercepts a conversation between two criminals planning to commit a serious crime? Can this person bring this intercepted communication without fear of being arrested by the police? What if he does not and the crime is committed? Also, what if the two talking are powerful people in government? We know that there are many crimes wherein high officials in government are involved not only in illegal drugs, corruption, plunder, and electoral fraud. This kind of situation is not so simple especially if time is of the essence. The current law is too rigid and limited in scope. The courts can only authorize the interception of a limited number of crimes such as treason, espionage, rebellion or sedition and kidnapping. It does not include other crimes such as plunder, electoral fraud and illegal drugs.
One of the features of the law is that all parties of the private communication must agree to the release of any recording in order for the intercepted communication to be admitted as evidence. One party is not enough to give the permission. What the law should protect should only be innocent private conversations. Communications involving high crimes such as treason, plunder and espionage should receive no protection at all. People who for instance accidentally intercept a conversation should have no fear in bringing the intercepted conversation to the police without any fear of arrest in order for the police to start an investigation.